[cdi-dev] explicit bean archives discovery-mode 'annotated'
rmannibucau at gmail.com
Fri Mar 6 03:48:01 EST 2015
that's not the issue of none. None was mainly designed for not cdi libs I
think...which will never get modified for cdi *by design*.
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
2015-03-06 9:44 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>:
> While we are at it: the ’none’ mode is broken as well ;)
> Imagine you have a jar in say DeltaSpike with a
> Now let’s run this in CDI-1.1++ containers: all fine jar gets ignored
> But in CDI-1.0 containers: whoops, due to having a beans.xml at all
> (marker interface) the container must scan this jar.
> There is simply no backward compatible way to tell the container that it
> should ignore a jar.
> > Am 06.03.2015 um 09:15 schrieb Jozef Hartinger <jharting at redhat.com>:
> > On 03/06/2015 09:03 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >> Hi
> >> Well you cant ask libs to change their programming model for it IMO. It
> is clearly a regression.
> > Why not? Existing applications (empty beans.xml) will still work as
> before so there is no regression. If a lib wants to support
> bean-discovery-mode="annotated" then it has to adapt. It would be better if
> they did not have to but it's too late at this point.
> >> Another broken case is if any other IoC uses some of these annotations
> but doesnt rely on scanning. Now you scan the jar and can get surprises and
> even an Error.
> > Yes, this was a risk when implicit bean archives were introduced. This
> was in the end mitigated by only making CDI annotations as bean defining
> (most likely other IoC won't use CDI annotations) plus introducing
> bdm="none" mode.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cdi-dev